U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah July 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment Woodruff Pressurized Irrigation Project PRO-EA-16-006 Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Provo, Utah

Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah July 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment Woodruff Pressurized Irrigation Project PRO-EA-16-006 Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office prepared by Interdisciplinary Team Leader David Snyder 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 801-379-1185 dsnyder@usbr.gov

Contents

Page Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ...................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ................................................. 3 1.4 Public Scoping and Involvement ............................................................... 5 1.5 Permits and Authorizations ........................................................................ 6 1.6 Scope of Analysis ...................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2 Alternatives ........................................................................................ 8 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 8 2.2 No Action ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Canal Enclosure ................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Turnouts .......................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Rights-of-Way................................................................................. 10 2.3.4 Road Crossings ............................................................................... 10 2.3.5 River Crossings ............................................................................... 10 2.3.6 Saved Water .................................................................................... 10 2.3.7 Construction Schedule and Canal Operation During Construction .. 11 2.3.8 Pipeline Construction Procedures ................................................... 11

2.3.8.1 Construction Sequence............................................................ 11 2.3.8.2 Excavate and Grade Pipeline Alignment ................................ 11 2.3.8.3 Pipeline Installation ................................................................ 11 2.3.8.4 Road Crossings ....................................................................... 12 2.3.8.5 Quality Control Procedures..................................................... 12 2.3.8.6 Construction Staging Areas .................................................... 12 2.3.8.7 Operation and Maintenance .................................................... 12 2.3.8.8 Standard Operating Procedures ............................................... 12

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study.................. 13 2.4.1 Membrane Lining............................................................................ 13 2.4.2 Gravity Pipeline .............................................................................. 13

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................... 13 2.6 Minimization Measures Incorporated into the Proposed Action ............. 14

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .......... 15 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 15 3.2 Resources Considered and Eliminated from Further Analysis ................ 15 3.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................... 16

3.3.1 Geology and Soils Resources.......................................................... 16 3.3.1.1 No Action ................................................................................ 16

3.3.1.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Visual Resources ............................................................................. 16

3.3.2.1 No Action ................................................................................ 17 3.3.2.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 17

3.3.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 17 3.3.3.1 No Action ................................................................................ 18 3.3.3.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 18

3.3.4 Hydrology ....................................................................................... 19 3.3.4.1 No Action ................................................................................ 19 3.3.4.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 20

3.3.5 Water Quality .................................................................................. 20 3.3.5.1 No Action ................................................................................ 21 3.3.5.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 21

3.3.6 Health, Safety, Air Quality, and Noise ........................................... 21 3.3.6.1 No Action ................................................................................ 21 3.3.6.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 21

3.3.7 Wetlands, Riparian, Noxious Weeds, and Existing Vegetation ....... 22 3.3.7.1 No Action ................................................................................ 25 3.3.7.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 26

3.3.8 Wildlife Resources .......................................................................... 26 3.3.8.1 Fish .......................................................................................... 26 3.3.8.2 Small Mammals ...................................................................... 26 3.3.8.3 Raptors .................................................................................... 26 3.3.8.4 Migratory and Other Birds ...................................................... 27 3.3.8.5 Big Game ................................................................................ 27 3.3.8.6 No Action ................................................................................ 27 3.3.8.7 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 27

3.3.9 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................... 28 3.3.9.1 No Action ................................................................................ 28 3.3.9.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 28

3.3.10 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................... 29 3.3.10.1 State Sensitive Species .......................................................... 30 3.3.10.2 No Action .............................................................................. 30 3.3.10.3 Proposed Action .................................................................... 30

3.3.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................ 30 3.3.11.1 No Action .............................................................................. 31 3.3.11.2 Proposed Action .................................................................... 31

3.3.12 Access and Transportation ............................................................ 31 3.3.12.1 No Action .............................................................................. 32 3.3.12.2 Proposed Action .................................................................... 32

3.3.13 Water Rights ................................................................................. 32 3.3.13.1 No Action .............................................................................. 32 3.3.13.2 Proposed Action .................................................................... 32

3.3.14 Flood Control ................................................................................ 32 3.3.14.1 No Action .............................................................................. 32 3.3.14.2 Proposed Action .................................................................... 32

3.4 Indian Trust Assets .................................................................................. 33 3.5 Environmental Justice .............................................................................. 33 3.6 Cumulative Effects................................................................................... 33 3.7 Summary of Environmental Effects ......................................................... 34

Chapter 4 Environmental Commitments ........................................................ 35 4.1 Environmental Commitments .................................................................. 35

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination ...................................................... 38 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 38 5.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................. 38 5.3 Native American Consultation ................................................................. 38 5.4 Utah Geological Survey ........................................................................... 39 5.5 Utah State Historic Preservation Office ................................................... 39 5.6 Bureau of Indian Affairs .......................................................................... 39 5.7 US Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................. 39 5.8 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources ....................................................... 39 5.9 US Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................. 39

Chapter 6 Preparers .......................................................................................... 40 Chapter 7 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... 41 Chapter 8 References ......................................................................................... 42 Chapter 9 Appendices........................................................................................ 43

9.1 Appendix A – Meeting Minutes .............................................................. 43

1

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared to examine the potential environmental impacts of the Woodruff Pressurized Irrigation Project (Project), proposed by the Woodruff Irrigating Company (WIC). The Project area is located just west and within the town of Woodruff, in Rich County, Utah, as shown on the Project Location Map (Figure 1-1). The Project proposes to install 12.4 miles of pressurized pipeline eliminating approximately 20 miles of open canal. North Woodruff Creek and Woodruff Creek will remain open to carry any high flow waters through the canyon and Woodruff. It is estimated the canals lose at least 33 percent of conveyed water from seepage and evaporation. The WIC board members believe that losses could be as high as 50 percent based on many years of visual observation. A study performed in 1986 by the Rich Soil Conservation District indicated that flood irrigation systems in Rich County are 11 percent efficient. These losses equate to a total system loss of about 45 percent. In other words, almost half of the water is lost due to system inefficiencies and seepage losses. The water losses have a negative impact on WIC shareholders, Woodruff, and the general local economy. These losses reduce the available agricultural water to WIC shareholders during the late summer season, which is not enough for optimal crop production. The water savings realized by the implementation of the Project would provide irrigators with a more reliable source of water, which becomes critical in the late summer season.

1.2 Background

The WIC is a nonprofit irrigation company that was established in the late 1800’s to provide water to agricultural users near Woodruff, Utah. Water sources include Woodruff Creek, Birch Creek, and several springs throughout the valley. The WIC owns and operates two reservoirs, Woodruff Creek Reservoir with an existing capacity of 4,350 acre-feet and Birch Creek Reservoir with a capacity of 2,250 acre-feet, and 23 canals/ditches, all of which are unlined earth and encroached with vegetation. The total system has approximately 40 miles of open canals and ditches. Woodruff Creek Reservoir was created in 1970 by the construction of an earth-fill dam on Woodruff Creek and Birch Creek Reservoir was created in 1951 by the construction of an earth-fill dam on Birch Creek.

2

3

The WIC’s service area covers approximately 6,200 acres, which is divided into an upper system of 1,550 acres and a lower system of 4,650 acres. Figure 1-2 shows the existing system. There are 64 shareholders irrigating 3,100 acres of alfalfa/oats, which are mostly sprinkler-irrigated by pumping water, 2,300 acres of native grasses/wild hay (grass-hay) and 800 acres of pasture. Two-thirds of the land is currently flood-irrigated.

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

This EA evaluates the potential effects of the Proposed Action in order to determine whether it would cause significant impacts to the human or natural environment, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If the EA shows no significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued by the Bureau of Reclamation. Otherwise, an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The NEPA applies to this Project due to the grant received from Reclamation through the WaterSMART program. The purposes of the Project are to:

• Conserve approximately 5,560 acre-feet of water annually; • Improve water management and the reliability of irrigation water delivery; • Shore up the available water source permitting up to full water share use

during the irrigation season; • Decrease the need to use water from underground aquifers; • Conserve energy by limiting pumping of irrigation water; and • Produce a positive impact in the local economy.

The need for the Project is to provide water in the late summer. According to the Utah Division of Water Rights, the region has a water duty of 3 acre-feet per acre. There are 5,943.33 shares in the WIC. According to this allocation, the current water demand for the WIC is approximately 17,830 acre-feet of water annually. On an average year, the irrigation company uses water from spring runoff which typically supplies the water needs during the month of May (7,200 acre-feet). Flows during spring runoff exceed 200 cubic feet per second (cfs), but the WIC can only divert up to 120 cfs into the existing canals. By the beginning of June, the WIC starts to release about 100 cfs from Woodruff Creek Dam and another 20 cfs from Birch Creek Dam, which lasts through the beginning of July (7,200 acre-feet). Therefore, the historical average of total water available is 14,400 acre-feet annually. This results in the irrigation season ending in the beginning of July and an average yearly shortage of about 3,430 acre-feet of water (19 percent).

4

(Figure 1-2)

5

With most of the supply coming early in the season, there are late season shortages. Woodruff Creek and Birch Creek Reservoirs are generally drawn down to their conservation pools by the first week in July each year causing crops and irrigated pastures to dry-out the last half of the summer. The proposed Project would virtually eliminate losses in the conveyance system and improve irrigation efficiencies by facilitating the conversion of 1,500 acres of flood-irrigation to sprinkler systems. A more efficient system would stretch the limited water supplies and provide water in late summer. This would create a more sustainable and reliable water supply.

1.4 Public Scoping and Involvement

On October 8, 2014, a general stockholder meeting was held, during which, information about Reclamation WaterSMART Grant was presented. A motion was made to meet again in a week to vote on whether to apply for a grant. On October 15, 2014, a special stockholder meeting was held to discuss the proposed project, pursuing the feasibility of a pipeline, and the WaterSMART Grant to help pay for it. The shareholders voted to proceed. Of the 5,601.95 shares represented, 3,778.42 (67 percent) voted to proceed. An annual shareholders meeting was held on April 8, 2015. It was noted that WIC had applied for a $1 million grant from the WaterSMART Program. In addition, the Utah Division of Water Resources had approved to loan $3.2 million for the Project. A long discussion was held regarding the proposed pipeline project. On June 10, 2015, a stockholder special meeting was held. The WIC was awarded the WaterSMART Grant. The project engineer was present to answer questions and address a list of questions the board had previously sent to him. Another special stockholder meeting was held on July 29, 2015, to vote on whether to accept the $1 million grant. The shareholders voted with 5,189.9 shares in attendance; 3,009.82 voted to proceed, 1,720.08 voted against, and 460 abstained from voting. A shareholder meeting was held on February 8, 2016, at the Woodruff City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was for shareholders to identify where they would like their irrigation turnout located and to verify the number of shares owned. Each shareholder present had the opportunity to discuss the Project as it related to their property with the project engineer. Each shareholder was able to communicate their requests and opinions of the Project. A copy of all meeting minutes are found in Appendix A.

6

A public open house meeting to discuss the proposed project is scheduled to be held on Monday July 11, 2016, from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm at the Woodruff Town Hall located at 195 S. Main, Woodruff, Utah 84086.

1.5 Permits and Authorizations

Implementation of the Proposed Action may require a number of authorizations or permits from State and Federal agencies. The WIC would be responsible for obtaining all permits and authorizations required for the Project. Potential authorizations or permits may include those listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Permits and Authorizations

Agency/Department Purpose

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights (DWRi)

Stream Alteration Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Utah statutory criteria of stream alteration described in the Utah Code. This would apply for impacts to North Woodruff Creek, Woodruff Creek or other natural streams or creeks during Project construction.

Utah State Historic Preservation Office

Consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 USC 470 USC 470.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

A USACE permit, in compliance with Section 404 of the CWA, would be required prior to the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” including wetlands.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (DWQ)

A Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit for construction activities would be required to help prevent erosion and ensure sediment controls are utilized to minimize construction impacts.

7

1.6 Scope of Analysis

The purpose of this EA is to determine whether or not there would be significant impacts to the environment, which includes human environment, as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Replacement of the earthen canal system with a pressurized pipeline to develop a more secure and reliable irrigation water supply for WIC shareholders is the Proposed Action Alternative. In order to replace the canal system with a pressurized pipeline, this EA must be completed and a FONSI issued.

8

Chapter 2 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the features of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives, and presents a comparative analysis. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative.

2.2 No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the WIC system would remain the same. It would continue to lose approximately 40-50 percent of the water in the canals and ditches through seepage and evaporation. This negative impact on WIC shareholders, Woodruff, and local economics would continue.

2.3 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is the preferred alternative. A 12.4-mile pressurized pipeline system would be constructed to convey water historically carried in canals and ditches. Figure 2-1 shows the proposed pipeline alignment, which begins west of Woodruff along Highway 39, and would be constructed in the WIC’s lower service area system. Water would be diverted from Woodruff Creek at the location of the existing Eastman/Frazier Diversion structure to divert all waters for the lower system’s shareholders at this location. The system would have four major pipelines, mainly within road rights-of-way, that have a combined capacity of 60 cfs. The pipeline would replace the open canals, which would remain open in most locations. Elevations range from 6,500 feet above sea level at the beginning of the Project, to 6,315 feet above sea level at the lowest elevation.

2.3.1 Canal Enclosure The canal system currently operates as an open canal. The WIC desires to replace 20 miles of canal with 12.4 miles of pressurized pipeline. The pipe size will vary from 15 to 54-inches-in-diameter. Pressures will range from 0 at the highest elevations to 84 pounds per square inch (psi) at the lowest elevations. At locations where the higher pressures occur, the pipe would be rated to 100 psi. During planning of the Project, the canal would continue to be operated as an open canal (not piped) and would have limited pressure until the entire Project is complete. At that time, the lower system would become fully enclosed. The pipeline alignment would be revegetated after construction.

9

(Figure 2-1)

10

2.3.2 Turnouts Approximately 40 turnouts would be installed along the pipeline to deliver water. During high flow events, water could remain in Woodruff Creek and flow through town and into the Bear River.

2.3.3 Rights-of-Way The land on which construction would occur is either private property, of which easements are being obtained, public lands with rights-of-way, or within the canal alignment right-of-way.

2.3.4 Road Crossings Road crossings would occur where highways and surface streets cross the pipeline alignment. Highway 16 would be crossed at Schulthess Lane and Center Street using the boring method to reduce disturbance to the overlaying road. The alignment would be adjacent to Highway 39 on the south side. Although Highway 39 would not be crossed, at the contractor’s discretion it may be reduced to one lane of traffic with traffic controls to allow for construction in tight locations. Where possible, existing culverts would be used to cross the local roadways. In other locations within Woodruff, roads may be temporarily shut down so the roadway could be cut and the pipeline installed. During periods of road closure, detours would be provided. Following construction, disturbed roads would be repaired and all major roads would remain open where crossings occurred. Driveway crossings provide access over the canals for individual landowners and consist of existing culverts. Most crossings would remain intact throughout construction of the Project.

2.3.5 River Crossings North Woodruff Creek and Woodruff Creek would be crossed several times. Although they may be temporarily disrupted during construction, they would remain open following pipeline construction to carry potential high flows. The existing Eastman/Frazier Diversion would be reconstructed to divert water into the proposed pipeline. Stream Alteration Permits would be obtained for each river crossing and the existing diversion.

2.3.6 Saved Water An estimated 5,560 acre-feet of water would be conserved by implementing this Project, which would decrease shortages and improve water management. With good construction practices, the losses due to seepage and evaporation would be near zero. This saved water does not constitute a new source of water previously unavailable to the users of the canal. The Project would benefit all water users on the system. The conserved water from the Project allows water to be available longer into the irrigation season,

11

thereby allowing users to receive their full allotment and increase their crop yields.

2.3.7 Construction Schedule and Canal Operation During Construction The Project consists of constructing 12.4 miles of pipeline. It is anticipated that the work would begin during the fall of 2016 and that all construction could be completed by the end of 2016; however, it would commence in spring of 2017 if uncontrollable factors prohibit completion in 2016. Access to the farmlands and agricultural areas would be maintained during construction. The WIC’s board members would work with the affected property owners to address their concerns, to the extent possible. It is anticipated that the pipe used would be high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which has an industry accepted life expectancy of 50 years. Corrosion resistant fittings would be used to increase life expectancy of all fittings and appurtenances.

2.3.8 Pipeline Construction Procedures

2.3.8.1 Construction Sequence Construction would likely occur in the following sequence:

Excavate and grade pipeline alignment Install pipeline bedding materials Haul pipeline to construction sites Place pipeline and connect Backfill around pipeline and grade surface Cleanup and restore areas disturbed by construction Plant rights-of-way and disturbed areas to provide revegetation

2.3.8.2 Excavate and Grade Pipeline Alignment The pipeline alignment, including canal locations where pipeline will be placed, would be excavated and graded to provide a base for installation of the pipeline. All excess material would be disposed within easements of the pipeline right-of-way. Much of the excavated material could be used for backfill and would be disposed in ways that blend with adjacent lands. Bedding material would be hauled to the Project site and placed in the bottom of the pipeline trench.

2.3.8.3 Pipeline Installation The pipe manufacturer would transport the materials to the work site by flatbed truck and/or specially outfitted loaders. Construction equipment would place the pipeline in the prepared alignment and connect to the previously laid section by field welding depending on the pipeline type. Backfill would be placed at correct compaction levels around the pipeline from either material available along the alignment or imported from local offsite commercial gravel pits. Backfill would

12

be mechanically compacted with a compactor. Air-valves, control valves, drains, fittings, and relief valves would be installed at appropriate locations to ensure the proper operation of the pipeline. Spoil in work areas would be blended with existing contours to maintain local drainage patterns. All construction debris would be removed by the contractor.

2.3.8.4 Road Crossings It is anticipated that pipeline installation at road crossings would be completed with minimal disturbance to existing structures. Backfill would be compacted all the way to the ground surface at road crossings to prevent the road surface from subsiding under repeated traffic loads during and after construction. Temporary gravel surfaces would be installed and the final asphalt and curb and gutter, where existing, would be restored by the completion of the Project. Road crossings would be restored to a condition better than or equal to existing conditions as confirmed by video footage and photographs.

2.3.8.5 Quality Control Procedures The contractor would ensure quality control of construction through visual inspection after backfilling and all construction work is completed. The required testing would be performed to ensure that the system operates to design specifications.

2.3.8.6 Construction Staging Areas Eight separate staging areas (29.5 acres) in the Project area were evaluated as part of the environmental process to be used for equipment staging, construction personnel vehicular parking, and occasional materials stockpiling. However, the pipeline alignment would be a continuous staging area for the construction crews as they construct the pipeline by preparing the alignment, laying the pipeline, backfilling, finishing grading, and restoration. Work would be conducted in stages.

2.3.8.7 Operation and Maintenance Operation of the WIC’s system after the Project would remain essentially unchanged, and maintenance would be reduced significantly. Operation would occur primarily from April 15 to October 15. However, emergency situations or when other conveyance systems are out of service may require the pressurized pipeline to be operated at other times.

2.3.8.8 Standard Operating Procedures The Project has been designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) would be followed during construction and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the Project to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on people and natural resources. Chapter 3 presents the impact analysis for resources after SOPs have been successfully implemented.

13

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

The following alternatives were evaluated but eliminated because they did not meet the purpose of or need for the Project.

2.4.1 Membrane Lining This alternative involves lining the existing canal with an impermeable membrane, such as an ethylene propylene diene monomer or polyvinyl chloride. This liner would be installed on top of a 6-inch thick layer of clean backfill material and covered with several inches of the same backfill material. This alternative was rejected because of susceptibility to puncturing and the need to repair punctures on a regular basis. Punctures can occur when equipment or large animals such as livestock, enter the canal. It would also still allow debris to enter the canal, it would not shorten the time to make flow changes, and most of the other aspects of an open canal would remain the same. Public safety and evaporation loss would not be addressed with this alternative. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project because it would keep the water in an open environment; thus allowing evaporation and contamination from equipment and livestock.

2.4.2 Gravity Pipeline This alternative would pipe the existing canal alignment with a 24 to 60-inch diameter pipe. A larger size pipe is required to convey the free flowing water rather than a pressurized pipeline. Twenty miles of pipeline would be installed to replace the existing canal. Pressure reducing valves would be required to maintain velocities of 5 miles per hour. While this alternative would conserve water, it does not meet the purpose and need of the Project to conserve energy as it actually wastes it and is cost prohibitive.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

The suitability of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives were compared based on six objectives identified for the Project which are listed in Section 1.3.

14

As shown in Table 2-1, the No Action Alternative did not meet the Project objectives.

Table 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives

Project Objective Does the No Action Meet the Objective?

Does the Proposed Action Meet the

Objective? Conserve water No Yes Improve water management

No Yes

Shore up available water source

No Yes

Decrease underground aquifer use

No Yes

Conserve energy No Yes Positive impact on the local economy

No Yes

2.6 Minimization Measures Incorporated into the Proposed Action

The minimization measures, along with other measures listed under each resource in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 have been incorporated into the Proposed Action to lessen the potential adverse effects.

All land surface disturbances would be confined to areas previously disturbed, ditch rights-of-way, existing roads, agricultural farmland, and staging areas adjacent to the Project area.

Stockpiling of materials would be limited to those areas approved and cleared in advance.

The WIC would be responsible during construction for safety measures, noise and dust control, and air and water pollution.

15

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the environment that could be affected by the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. These impacts are discussed under the following resource issues: geology and soils resources; visual resources; cultural resources; hydrology; paleontological resources; wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers; water quality; health, safety, air quality, and noise; prime and unique farmlands; wetlands, riparian, noxious weeds and existing vegetation; wildlife resources; aquatic resources; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; socioeconomics; access and transportation; water rights; flood control; Indian Trust Assets (ITAs); environmental justice; and cumulative effects. The present condition or characteristics of each resource are discussed first, followed by a discussion of the predicted impacts caused by the Proposed Action. The environmental effects are summarized in Section 3-7.

3.2 Resources Considered and Eliminated from Further Analysis

The resources listed in Table 3-1 were considered but eliminated from further analysis because they did not occur in the Project area or because their effect is so minor (negligible) that it was discounted.

Table 3-1 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis

Resources Rationale for Elimination from Further Analysis Paleontological Consultation with the State Paleontologist indicates there is Resources a very low probability of the presence of paleontological

resources in the Project area. Wilderness Areas There are no designated Wilderness Areas or Wild and and Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Project area; therefore, Wilderness Scenic Rivers Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers would not be affected by

implementing the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives.

Prime and There is Prime Farmland within the Project area but no Unique Farmland Unique Farmland. However, there would be no conversion

of farmland to non-agricultural use, as defined by the

16

Resources Rationale for Elimination from Further Analysis Farmland Protection Policy Act (USC 4201-4209), by implementing the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives.

Recreation Woodruff Creek and North Woodruff Creek are not substantial fisheries and are too small to support any measurable recreation. The WIC’s irrigation ditches do not provide sources of recreation.

3.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the affected environment (baseline conditions) and environmental consequences (impacts as a result of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives) on the quality of the human environment that could be impacted by construction and operation of the Proposed Action, as described in Chapter 2. The human environment is defined in this study as all of the environmental resources, including social and economic conditions occurring in the impact area of influence.

3.3.1 Geology and Soils Resources The Project area is dominated by well drained soils. The majority of the soil type is Cowco loam (49.5 percent) with Bockston loam being the next majority (13.1 percent). The remaining soils vary and are minor. They may have properties similar to the dominant soils and do not affect use and management.

3.3.1.1 No Action Under the No Action, the Project would not be built. This would have no effect on geology and soils.

3.3.1.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative would have temporary surface soil impacts during construction. Construction erosion and sediment controls would serve to minimize these impacts. As a requirement of the UPDES permit for construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and adhered to by the construction contractor.

3.3.2 Visual Resources The natural and constructed features contribute to the visual resources within the Project area, including: mountain views, agricultural fields, and vegetation along the ditch corridor. Viewers, including local residents, workers, and recreationists, have a perception of the existing physical characteristics. This section assesses the extent to which the Project would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment where the Project is located.

17

3.3.2.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing visual resources.

3.3.2.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, it is anticipated that there would be permanent loss of riparian vegetation along the abandoned canal and ditch reaches that do not capture sufficient storm water, agricultural runoff, or other supplemental water sources to allow such vegetation to persist. The abandoned ditches and canals would remain open for stormwater collection; however, they would be allowed to fill in naturally over time. North Woodruff Creek and Woodruff Creek would remain available for high flood flows. Additionally, there would be no permanent construction impacts from constructing a pipeline to the overall visual character for the close-range to mid-range or even long-range viewers. Any visual impairment due to construction would be temporary. All ground disturbance related to construction of the pipeline would be graded and revegetated.

3.3.3 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as physical or other expressions of human activity or occupation that are over 50 years in age. Such resources include culturally significant landscapes, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites as well as isolated artifacts or features, traditional cultural properties, Native American and other sacred places, and artifacts and documents of cultural and historic significance. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), mandates that Reclamation take into account the potential effects of a proposed Federal undertaking on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Potential effects of the described alternatives on historic properties are the primary focus of this analysis. The affected environment for cultural resources is identified as the area of potential effects (APE), in compliance with the regulations to Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.16). The APE is defined as the geographic area within which Federal actions may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties. The APE for this Proposed Action includes the area that could be physically affected by any of the proposed project alternatives (the maximum limit of disturbance). A Class I literature review and a Class III cultural resource inventory were completed for the APE, defined in the action alternative and analyzed for the Proposed Action, by Bighorn Archaeological Consultants (Bighorn). In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, any sites identified within the APE were

18

evaluated for significance in terms of NRHP eligibility. The significance criteria applied to evaluate cultural resources are defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and

1. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

2. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 3. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

4. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The results of Bighorn’s survey include two historic irrigation ditches. Examination of the proposed Project area resulted in the extension and update of two previously recorded cultural sites. These sites are either recommended or accepted by Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as non-significant and not eligible to the NRHP. There are no cultural properties which have been determined to be eligible to the NRHP within the Project area. Site 42RI149 (unnamed ditch) has previously been recommended as non-significant and not eligible to the NRHP. It is of minor importance and is only one of several short ditches from a tributary creek used to water a small area of the floodplain. Bighorn extended the site to the south for an additional 150 meters (0.1 mile) and concurs that the site is not eligible to the NRHP under any criterion. Site 42RI180 (Co-op ditch) has previously been recommended as non-significant and not eligible to the NRHP with SHPO concurrence. It does not have a unique design or construction for a rural irrigation ditch. It had a limited role in the agricultural and water development history of the region.

3.3.3.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, a continuation of existing management and land use practices would occur. It would include ongoing maintenance and repair of existing facilities. There would be no changes to the current conditions.

3.3.3.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction activities have the potential to discover previous, unknown, cultural resources and Native American artifacts. In the event of a discovery, construction activity in the vicinity would be

19

suspended. A treatment plan would be developed, and coordination with SHPO would occur immediately.

3.3.4 Hydrology Both Woodruff Creek Reservoir and Birch Creek Reservoir are impoundments used by WIC, which flow into Woodruff Creek and then North Woodruff Creek. Woodruff Creek is the main source of water for WIC and has been used for crop cultivation since the 1880’s. WIC uses water from spring runoff which typically supplies the water needs during the month of May. Flows during spring runoff exceed 200 cfs, but WIC can only divert up to 120 cfs into the existing canals. By the beginning of June, WIC starts to release about 100 cfs from Woodruff Creek Dam and another 20 cfs from Birch Creek Dam, which lasts through the beginning of July. The majority of this water is diverted into the ditches. This results in the irrigation season ending in the beginning of July with an average yearly shortage of about 3,430 acre-feet of water based on the region’s water duty of 3 acre-feet per acre. WIC uses diversion structures to divert water into the various canals and ditches for the shareholders surrounding and in Woodruff. Several of the upper ditches can only be supplied by either Birch Creek Reservoir or Woodruff Creek Reservoir. The lower ditches can be supplied by either reservoir. Woodruff Creek Reservoir has a conservation pool of 450 acre-feet and Birch Creek Reservoir has a conservation pool of 400 acre-feet. The reservoirs are generally drawn down to their respective conservation pools by the first week in July each year causing crops and irrigated pastures to dry-out the last half of the summer. Irrigation water releases from these reservoirs cease at the conclusion of the irrigation season each year in order to begin storing water for the following irrigation season. Several springs and natural drainages exist that continue to feed into the creek system downstream of the dams. Farmers in the area have always sought ways to improve the water supply. Beginning west of Woodruff, Woodruff Creek flows east and is a tributary of the Bear River, which terminates at the Great Salt Lake. The Bear River is a 303(d)-listed river, indicating that it is an impaired body of water for water quality standards, particularly total phosphorus and dissolved oxygen. Prior to entering the Great Salt Lake, diversions are made to the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Historically, the refuge has had some difficulty in diverting the necessary water supply to maintain a healthy ecosystem, sometimes resulting in outbreaks and disease.

3.3.4.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effect on the hydrology of Woodruff Creek stream flows, as there would be no change in the existing management of the water resource.

20

3.3.4.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the same flows that have historically been diverted by WIC would continue to be diverted into the proposed pipeline, which has a capacity of 65 cfs. However, all water to be diverted for shareholders would occur at the Eastman/Frazier Diversion rather than at various points along Woodruff Creek and North Woodruff Creek. This would cause a reduction in flows downstream of the Eastman/Frazier Diversion in both Woodruff Creek and North Woodruff Creek during the irrigation season. High flows during spring runoff and precipitation events that exceed the pipeline capacity would remain in Woodruff Creek and continue to flow downstream. This may occur into the summer depending upon seasonal conditions. The ditches that supply shareholders who choose to sprinkler irrigate, would likely dry up. The ditches that supply shareholders who choose to flood irrigate would continue to transport water, as the pipeline turnouts at these locations would discharge into the existing ditches. The overall water supply available to WIC would increase due to eliminating seepage and evaporation losses in the canals and ditches. The water savings would be captured in the reservoirs for use later in the irrigation season by the shareholders, with an estimated extension of the irrigation season by 15 to 20 days. This would also allow the captured water savings to flow downstream later into the year, extending the flows in Woodruff Creek by an estimated 15 to 20 days annually.

3.3.5 Water Quality Each stream, reservoir, and canal in Utah is classified according to its beneficial uses. The required standards for water quality parameters are determined by the classifications used. According to the Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, Environmental Quality (R317-2-13), Utah Administrative Code (UAC), Woodruff Creek is classified as:

Class 2B -- Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also, protected for secondary contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of bodily contact with the water. Examples include, but are not limited to, wading, hunting, and fishing.

Class 3A -- Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold

water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.

Any water not diverted from Woodruff Creek continues to flow downstream into the Bear River. Flood irrigation creates return-flows that are high in nitrogen and phosphorus. The Bear River is a 303(d)-listed river, indicating that it is an impaired body of water for water quality standards, particularly total phosphorus and dissolved oxygen.

21

3.3.5.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the current conditions or additional effects to water quality. Any herbicides, nutrients, and sediments would continue to remain in the water in the same ratios as current conditions. Since no construction would occur, there would be no temporary construction-related water quality impacts.

3.3.5.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the pipeline would cross North Woodruff Creek two times and Woodruff Creek three times. Additionally, the existing Eastman/Frazier Diversion structure on Woodruff Creek would be reconstructed to divert water into the proposed pipeline. Stream Alteration Permits would be obtained for each crossing and the diversion. Minor water quality impacts may occur due to increased sedimentation during construction if flows are present. However, these impacts would be temporary and minimized through the development of a SWPPP and completing creek crossings during periods of low or no flow. Conditions set forth in the permits to help minimize sediment load and water quality impacts would be adhered to. Any instream flows during construction would be allowed to bypass the construction location and continue downstream as would occur naturally. The Proposed Action would improve water quality as water would be conveyed in a closed pipe, decreasing sedimentation from bank erosion, and nutrient transfer from agricultural and urban runoff. There are no foreseen long-term negative impacts to water quality in Woodruff Creek or the irrigation system.

3.3.6 Health, Safety, Air Quality, and Noise This section identifies potential public safety hazards and health risks from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action and No Action. The project is located in a rural area, with Woodruff being the most densely populated area. The areas exposed to noise during construction lie adjacent to Highway 39, Highway 16, and the local county roads.

3.3.6.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative there would be no adverse effects to health, safety, air quality, and noise.

3.3.6.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative may have minor short-term effects during construction. Noise levels within the Project area would temporarily increase during pipeline construction due to heavy equipment and truck traffic. If county and state roads are used for access during construction, risk of traffic accidents may increase slightly. Also, fugitive dust has the potential to increase during pipeline construction; however, dust suppressant measures will be used to help minimize the increased short-term impacts.

22

The pipeline would operate as a low-pressure pipeline with pressures ranging from 0 psi at the highest elevations to 84 psi at the lowest elevations. The appropriate pipe type would be selected depending on the calculated pressures. Every pipe has a pressure class rating with a built in factor of safety. Many pipelines are pressurized including culinary water lines and do not pose a threat to public safety. There would be no long-term effects on health, safety, air quality, and noise.

3.3.7 Wetlands, Riparian, Noxious Weeds, and Existing Vegetation A Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation was conducted for the proposed Project on December 9-10, 2015. The delineation was completed in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008). Focus was placed on areas previously identified as potential National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland areas. The proposed pipeline crosses three soil types being conducive to supporting wetlands. The three soil-types analyzed and targeted for evaluation were Hival silty clay loam (HC), Saleratus loam (SA), and Saleratus loam, saline-alkali (SB). These soils all had slopes of 2 percent or less, poorly drained soils, and a high water table between 18-30 inches from the surface. Approximately 100 meters (328 feet) upstream and 100 meters downstream of the Project area were surveyed for wetlands. Additional areas for sampling were selected based on vegetation characteristics that could potentially be wetland habitat. The survey resulted in one potentially jurisdictional wetland area being delineated along Highway 39 toward the west end of the Project area. It was located in a field on the south side between Highway 39 and the private fence line. The area contained Obligate (OBL) species such as cattail (Typha latifolia) and bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) along with Facultative Wetland (FACW) species such as wiregrass (Juncus balticus). Five potential areas were also surveyed; however, the areas did not demonstrate any wetland vegetation characteristics or meet the hydric soils or hydrology necessary to support wetlands. These areas yielded a non-wetland determination. Two additional potential NWI wetland areas were inaccessible due to private access constraints. Both areas appear to demonstrate the same habitat characteristics and plant make-up (i.e. no OBL species) as the other five NWI wetland areas sampled, which were all determined to be non-wetland. With the evidence of these five other areas with similar habitat characteristics being determined as non-wetland, it is generally assumed these two additional inaccessible areas would yield similar results and be classified as non-wetland. However, since soils and hydrology could not be tested at the time of survey for these two areas, the supporting evidence for a non-wetland determination is inconclusive at this time. It is important to note that all proposed construction

23

activities would occur within previously disturbed areas, within the development of existing facilities (i.e. canals, roadways, ditches, etc.). Habitat surrounding the proposed pipeline is primarily agricultural along the valley bottoms with willows (Salix sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus sp.) lining portions of Woodruff Creek and various canals. The foothills and mountains consist of pinyon (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus sp.) stands with sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate) as the dominant shrub. The pipeline corridor is relatively clear of larger vegetation and understory, with the exception of grasses and weeds. The Project area ranges from 6,500 feet to about 6,315 feet elevation. The following photos are representative of the existing vegetation.

24

25

Noxious weeds are plants designated by a Federal, State, or County government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife or property. The State of Utah has declared noxious weeds under Section 4-17-3, Utah Noxious Weed Act. While Rich County does not have any additional noxious weeds, as of Utah Department of Agriculture and Food’s list of February 2015, it has identified some as high priority as highlighted below within the State’s list.

Bermudagrass (cynodon dactylon) Blackhenbane (Hyoscyamus niger) Canada thistle (cirsium arvense) Dalmatian toad flax (Linana dalmatica) Diffuse knapweed (centaurea diffusa) Dyers woad (isatis tinctoria L.) Field bindweed (convolvulus spp.) Hoary cress (cardaria drabe) Houndstongue (cynoglossum officianale L.) Johnsongrass (sorghum halephense) Leafy spurge (euphorbia esula) Medusahead (taeniatherum caput-medusae) Musk thistle (carduus mutans) Oxeye daisy (chrysanthemium leucanthemum L.) Perennial pepperweed (lepidium latifolium) Perennial sorghum (sorghum halepense L. & sorghum almum) Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum) Purple loosestrife (lythrum salicania L.) Quackgrass (agropyron repens) Russian knapweed (centaurea repens) Salt Cedar (tamarix ramosissima Ledeb.) Scotch thistle (onopordum acanthium) Spotted knapweed (centaurea maculosa) Squarrose knapweed (centaurea squarrosa) St. John’s Wort (hypericum perforatum L.) Sulfur cinquefoil (potentilla recta L.) Yellow starthistle (centaurea solstitialis) Yellow toadflax (linaria vulgaris Mill.)

3.3.7.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the current conditions or additional effects to wetlands. Since no construction would occur, there would be no impacts to potential wetlands. A continuation of existing management and land use practices would occur including ongoing maintenance and repair of existing facilities. There would be no changes to the current conditions.

26

3.3.7.2 Proposed Action Following all observations and analysis, it is concluded that under the Proposed Action Alternative, minor impacts to the delineated wetland area is anticipated to occur during pipeline construction. However, they would be expected to be temporary and minimal. To help minimize impacts to the wetland area the top 6-inches of topsoil and vegetation would be removed and stockpiled separately to be replaced after pipeline backfill has been compacted. All trench excavation spoils will be stockpiled outside of the delineated wetland boundary. A stream alteration permit will be reviewed by the State of Utah DWRi prior to construction in this area. It is anticipated that there would be permanent loss of riparian vegetation along the abandoned canal and ditch reaches that do not capture sufficient storm water, agricultural runoff, or other supplemental water sources to allow such vegetation to persist. All construction activities would occur in areas that have been previously disturbed by the development of existing facilities, farming practices, and roadways. During construction, the disturbance to the soils along the pipeline alignment would be expected to be temporary and minimal. The spread of noxious weeds would be decreased because the water placed in the pipeline would be screened and most, if not all, noxious weed seeds will not pass through the screen. The right-of-way along Highway 39 is currently and would continue to be maintained by the Utah Department of Transportation. Many of the other lands are private property and agricultural lands. These are typically disked, plowed, and planted and would continue to be so, not allowing noxious weeds to grow. City streets would be maintained by Woodruff and residents along their property.

3.3.8 Wildlife Resources

3.3.8.1 Fish North Woodruff Creek and Woodruff Creek are not a major fishery in the area nor does the UDWR stock fish into them. Typical fish found may include cutthroat, rainbow trout, and white fish. Low flows and dry conditions in the summer limit habitat for fish.

3.3.8.2 Small Mammals Small mammals are inherent in rural, agricultural areas. These small mammals use the upland habitat, as well as the agricultural properties and the lands in between to live and locate prey.

3.3.8.3 Raptors Raptors, such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) may winter in the area, but do not breed locally. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) may be found year-round. A large portion of the raptors diet include the many small mammals that live in the open grasslands and agricultural lands within the Project area.

27

3.3.8.4 Migratory and Other Birds The habitat in the Project area supports a high quantity and diverse type of migratory and other birds. The following birds were identified on the USFWS IPaC Trust Resource List for breeding: american bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), calliope hummingbird (Stellula calliope), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), fox sparrow (Passerella liaca), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), olive sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), peregrine falcon (falco peregrinus), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), virginia’s warbler (Vermivora virginiae), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), and the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii).

3.3.8.5 Big Game The mountains west of Woodruff are a part of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provide winter habitat for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and rocky mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni). South and west-facing slopes at lower elevations are important wintering areas. During the winter, elk are usually found in lower to mid-elevation habitats with mountain shrub and sagebrush vegetation. During summer, most mule deer habitat is located at higher elevations. Although deer may feed at night in adjacent agricultural fields, the town limits of Woodruff and deer-proof fenced agricultural lands nearby limit their use of the area as winter habitat.

3.3.8.6 No Action The No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management and land use practices. There would be no new impacts to wildlife within the Project area.

3.3.8.7 Proposed Action Construction activities would occur in or adjacent to areas that were previously disturbed by agricultural development, homes, and roadways. Construction would be in the late fall through early spring. Wildlife disturbance would be localized, temporary, and minimal due to the lineal and fast moving nature of the construction activities. Revegetation at that elevation and location in early summer would likely occur fairly rapidly, which would minimize the disruption of habitat use by wildlife. Seasonal migrations of wildlife may be affected by Project construction. This would be temporary and wildlife would be able to use adjacent lands during this time. Temporary effects would be minimized by restricting construction activities to avoid sensitive breeding or nesting seasons. There would be no displacement or harassment of migratory birds and raptors because the construction season would occur during the late fall, winter, and early spring, which is after and prior to times when birds are actively breeding in the

28

area. The Project would ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that construction activities occurred in the late spring/early summer or any time active breeding, nesting, or pre-fledging behavioral activities were happening, WIC would adhere to the USFWS Utah Raptor Guidelines, placing appropriate buffers on nests until fledging activities concluded. If nests of migratory birds were located during the construction process, a Reclamation biologist would be consulted and an appropriate buffer would be put in place. Any birds still in the Project area during construction would be able to use similar roost sites or other habitats in the immediate Project vicinity, if cottonwood trees and/or willows were removed during construction. The removal of large trees is not anticipated to be necessary for this Project. The Project is being designed to avoid small trees as well. Effects to fish, small mammals, reptiles, and big game would be minimal. If the species were present during construction, minor disturbances to their habitat and some direct mortality may occur. Temporary changes in habitat for sensitive species would be negligible. Overall, the direct and indirect effects to wildlife resources would be minimal. In addition, the long and short-term impacts to the habitat, water sources, and behavior would be minor.

3.3.9 Aquatic Resources The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) does not stock fish in Woodruff Creek or Woodruff Creek Reservoir. The water in Woodruff Creek is controlled by releases from Birch Creek Reservoir and Woodruff Creek Reservoir, which is determined by irrigation demands. Birch Creek Reservoir is home to native cutthroat trout and contains populations of tiger and rainbow trout that are stocked by the UDWR. Cutthroat trout are also found in Woodruff Creek Reservoir. Irrigation water releases from these reservoirs cease at the conclusion of the irrigation season each year in order to begin storing water for the following irrigation season. Several springs and natural drainages exist that continue to feed into the creek system downstream of the dams. The fish that inhabit Woodruff Creek are likely accustomed to this seasonally changing flow pattern and may congregate within the deeper pools that remain within the creek channels. Multiple diversion structures currently exist within Woodruff Creek which cause fragmentation of fish habitat and prevent fish passage.

3.3.9.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be built and there would be no changes to aquatic resources.

3.3.9.2 Proposed Action Irrigation water releases from Birch Creek and Woodruff Creek Reservoirs would continue to cease at the conclusion of the irrigation season each year. The springs

29

and natural drainages that exist in the area would continue to feed into the creek system downstream of the dams. Seasonally changing flow patterns would continue to exist which the fish have likely become accustomed to. The Proposed Action would allow the water savings that had been captured in the reservoirs to flow downstream later into the year, extending the flow in Woodruff Creek by an estimated 15 to 20 days annually. Woodruff Creek and North Woodruff Creek, downstream of the Eastman/Frazier Diversion, would experience reduced flows during the irrigation season as all water provided to the shareholders would be diverted at the Eastman/Frazier Diversion rather than at various points along Woodruff Creek and North Woodruff Creek. High flows during spring runoff and precipitation events that exceed the 65 cfs capacity of the pipeline would remain in Woodruff Creek and continue to flow downstream. This may occur into the summer depending upon seasonal conditions. Deeper pools within Woodruff Creek would remain. Since the fish have likely become accustomed to the seasonal fluctuating flow patterns and habitat fragmentation, it is anticipated that there would be no effect upon aquatic resources.

3.3.10 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Federal agencies are required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 USC 1531, to ensure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out, does not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, or modify their critical habitat. An information request was made from the USFWS through the IPaC System on November 25, 2015, regarding any threatened or endangered species within the Project area. One threatened species, the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), was identified within the Project area. The Project area is identified as having “final designated” critical habitat for the species. There are no other critical habitats within the Project area. Table 3-2 lists the species along with habitat requirements and potential impact determination.

Table 3-2 ESA Listed Species with Potential Habitat in the Project Area

Species

(common and scientific name)

Status Habitat Description Suitable

Habitat in Project Area

Project Impact Determination

Mammals

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Threatened Isolated spruce, fir, and lodgepole pine forests, typically in areas with high prey populations, especially snowshoe hare

Final designation

Habitat requirements for species not present along pipeline alignment;

No effect

30

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2015, November 25)

3.3.10.1 State Sensitive Species The State Sensitive Species List contains species that are considered “Wildlife Species of Concern,” which means there are threats to their populations. These species are identified for conservation actions that would preclude the need for their listing under the ESA. There is no statutory protection from the Federal or State government. The following species were identified from an information request from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Utah Natural Heritage Program. The results are based on data existing in the UDWR central database on December 7, 2015. There are recent records of occurrence within a ½-mile radius of the Project area for the bald eagle, California floater, ferruginous hawk, pygmy rabbit, western pearlshell and white-tailed prairie dog, and historical records of occurrence for the black-footed ferret. In addition, within a 2-mile radius, there are recent records of occurrence for greater sage-grouse.

3.3.10.2 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect threats to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species or critical habitat because there would be no construction-related activities. There would be no changes to the current conditions.

3.3.10.3 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be no effect to Canada lynx during or after construction based on the fact that neither the species nor the habitat requirements are present along the pipeline alignment. In addition, effects to sensitive species would include displacement or disruption of normal behaviors. There may be minor short-term impacts to the habitats of the aforementioned sensitive species by removing vegetation or by removing a seasonal free water source. However, these effects would be minimal and short-lived until the species could find an alternative water source. Overall, sensitive species would not be affected appreciably, and it would not be long term or cause a trend toward federal listing under the ESA.

3.3.11 Socioeconomics The population of Woodruff was 180 in the 2010 census, equaling a 12.5 percent increase from the 2000 census. The estimated median adjusted gross household income for 2013 was $47,524, which is 15 percent higher than the State’s median adjusted gross household income of $40,489. Woodruff exhibits limited overall racial diversity, with 99.44 percent of residents classified as white in 2010 and 0.56 percent as native Hawaiian.

31

3.3.11.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the socioeconomics of the community.

3.3.11.2 Proposed Action Under the current irrigation scenario, surface water is usually exhausted in early July*. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be an increase in crop production to WIC shareholders as a result of increased water supplies providing an economic benefit due to the implementation of the Proposed Action. It would help stabilize the economics and sustainability of the farming and ranching community by providing improved irrigation efficiency, improved crop production of both hay and livestock, and reduce stresses on the culinary water supply for Woodruff. There would also be a temporary increase in jobs created, including construction workers and local suppliers of construction materials. Costs borne by WIC for operation and maintenance would be reduced. Shareholders would have the option to convert from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation as the pipeline would be pressurized. Shareholders who desire to continue flood irrigating would be able to do so from the pipeline. As part of the project, flood irrigation turnouts would include an orifice plate to restrict the flow and assist with energy dissipation. The water would then flow into the existing ditch. Flood irrigators would have the option to convert to sprinkler irrigation in the future by removing the orifice plate and connecting to the pipeline. Sprinkler irrigation would create positive economic benefits by allowing more water to be available for all shareholders through water conservation. Water would also be available later into the growing season, possibly allowing for another crop cutting thereby increasing the shareholder’s income by as much as 25 to 33 percent. There would be no changes to the land uses, thereby creating no effect to the socioeconomics of the community. The Project would not adversely affect low income or minority populations. *http://www.uintacountyherald.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=72&story_id=7664

3.3.12 Access and Transportation Remotely located, the Project can be accessed from Highway 39 from the West or Highway 16 from the East. The impact area of influence for transportation includes roads that would be used during construction, operation and maintenance of the No Action and the Action Alternatives. The impact area of influence for utilities includes any utilities that would be moved, replaced, or experience service interruptions under the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives. During construction, the majority of the vehicle trips would be for transporting construction materials. The contractor would be transporting heavy construction equipment at the beginning and end of the Project.

32

3.3.12.1 No Action The No Action Alternative would have no impact on access and transportation.

3.3.12.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative would have minor short-term effects during construction. Where the pipeline crosses existing roadways the roads would be temporarily shut down so that they can be cut and the pipeline installed. During each roadway closure, detours would be provided which could cause short-term delays. The road would be repaired following pipeline construction. There would be no long-term effects on access and transportation.

3.3.13 Water Rights The WIC owns multiple water rights, many of which are supplemental to one another. Combined, these water rights essentially allow WIC to divert over 120 cfs of direct flows for irrigation use and stored 6,600 acre-feet of spring high flow water. The water from these rights are combined to irrigate approximately 6,000 acres. Water is stored in two reservoirs owned and operated by WIC; Woodruff Creek Reservoir and Birch Creek Reservoir. Water is released into Woodruff Creek and Birch Creek, which combines into Woodruff Creek downstream.

3.3.13.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be built. This would have no effect on water rights.

3.3.13.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the allowed beneficial uses of WIC water rights. However, the conserved water would allow WIC to fully utilize its water rights due to elimination of water losses associated with seepage and evaporation.

3.3.14 Flood Control The WIC’s canal system does not serve as a flood control facility. However, it can collect runoff as it has historically.

3.3.14.1 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be built and there would be no changes.

3.3.14.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the canal system would remain open and therefore would be available to carry any stormwater or runoff. This would indeed be a beneficial effect of building the pipeline and abandoning the canal.

33

3.4 Indian Trust Assets

Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for Federally recognized Indian Tribes or Indian individuals. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights, such as lands, minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and water rights. The United States has an Indian trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted to such tribes or individuals by treaties, statutes, and executive orders. These rights are sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and regulations. This trust responsibility requires that all Federal agencies take all actions reasonably necessary to protect trust assets. Reclamation carries out its activities in a manner which protects these assets and avoids adverse impacts when possible. When impacts cannot be avoided, Reclamation would provide appropriate mitigation or compensation. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no foreseeable negative impacts on Indian Trust Assets.

3.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, established Environmental Justice as a Federal agency priority to ensure that minority and low-income groups are not disproportionately affected by Federal actions. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not disproportionately (unequally) affect any low-income or minority communities within the Project area. The reason for this is that the proposed Project would not involve major facility construction, population relocation, health hazards, hazardous waste, property takings, or substantial economic impacts. This action would therefore have no adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

3.6 Cumulative Effects

In addition to Project-specific impacts, Reclamation analyzed the potential for significant cumulative impacts to resources affected by the Project and by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities within the watershed. According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (50 CFR §1508.7), a “cumulative impact” is an impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It focuses on whether the Proposed Action, considered together with any known or reasonably foreseeable actions by Reclamation, other Federal or state agencies, or some other entity combined may cause an effect.

34

Based on resource specialists’ review of the Proposed Action, Reclamation has determined that this action would not have a significant adverse cumulative effect on any resources.

3.7 Summary of Environmental Effects

Table 3-3 summarizes environmental effects under the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives.

Table 3-3 Summary of Environmental Effects

Project Resource No Action Proposed Action

Geology and Soils Resources No Effect Minor Temporary Impacts

Visual Resource No Effect Permanent Impacts Cultural Resources No Effect No Effect Hydrology No Effect No Effect Water Quality No Effect Minor Temporary

Impacts Health, Safety, Air Quality, and Noise

No Effect Minor Temporary Impacts

Wetland, Riparian, Noxious Weeds, and Existing Vegetation

No Effect Permanent Impacts

Wildlife Resources No Effect Minor Temporary Impacts

Aquatic Resources No Effect No Effect Threatened and Endangered Species, Sensitive Species

No Effect Minor Temporary Impacts

Socioeconomics No Effect No Effect Access and Transportation No Effect Minor Temporary

Impacts Water Rights No Effect No Effect Flood Control No Effect No Effect Indian Trust Assets No Effect No Effect Environmental Justice No Effect No Effect Cumulative Effects No Effect No Effect

35

Chapter 4 Environmental Commitments Environmental Commitments, along with Minimization Measures in Section 2.6 have been developed to lessen the potential adverse effects of the Proposed Action.

4.1 Environmental Commitments

The following environmental commitments would be implemented as an integral part of the Proposed Action.

1. Additional Analyses – If the Proposed Action were to change significantly from that described in the EA, because of additional or new information, or if other construction areas are required outside the areas analyzed in this EA, additional environmental analysis including cultural and paleontological analyses would be undertaken if necessary.

2. Construction Restrictions – Construction and staging activities would be confined to previously disturbed areas, to the extent practicable.

3. Public Access – Activity areas would be closed to public access during construction. The WIC would coordinate with contractor’s personnel, as necessary, to ensure public safety.

4. Invasive Species – Appropriate steps would be taken to prevent the spread of, and to otherwise control, undesirable plants and animals within areas affected by construction activities. Equipment used for the project would be inspected for reproductive and vegetative parts, foreign soil, mud or other debris that may cause the spread of weeds, invasive species and other pests. Such material would be removed before moving vehicles and equipment. Upon the completion of work, decontamination would be performed within the work area before the vehicle and/or equipment are removed from the project site.

The WIC would make periodic inspections following vegetation of disturbed areas to locate and control populations of noxious weeds, if present. All seed used for restoration would be certified “noxious weed free” before use. If needed, the County Weed Control

36

Department could be contacted to provide services to control the spread of noxious weeds.

5. Vegetation – Design and treatment activities would ensure that vegetation would be protected with no long term adverse effects. Staging areas would be in previously disturbed areas to the extent possible.

6. Raptor and Migratory Bird Guidelines – The WIC would adhere to the USFWS Raptor Guidelines for Utah (Romin and Muck 2002) by placing seasonal and spatial “no construction” buffers, along with daily timing restrictions around all active raptor nests or winter roosting bald eagles. If unknown nests are located during construction, the same guidelines would be implemented.

In the event that construction or any other work would occur during the nesting season of any migratory bird, a pre-construction survey would take place to identify nest sites. If found, a buffer would be put in place to protect them during the nesting and pre-fledging seasons. Those buffers would follow the USFWS Raptor Guidelines for Utah or a standard buffer for migratory birds as designated by a qualified Reclamation biologist (usually 100 feet, depending on topography and vegetation).

7. Cultural Resources – Any person who knows or has reason to know that he/she has inadvertently discovered possible human remains on Federal land, he/she must provide immediate telephone notification of the discovery to Reclamation’s Provo Area Office archaeologist. Work would stop until the proper authorities are able to assess the situation onsite. This action would promptly be followed by written confirmation to the responsible Federal agency official, with respect to Federal lands. SHPO and interested Native American Tribal representatives would be promptly notified. Consultation would begin immediately. This requirement is prescribed under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 CFR Part 10) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470).

8. Air Quality – Best Management Practices (BMP) would be followed to mitigate for temporary impact on air quality due to construction related activities. These may include the application of dust suppressants and watering to control fugitive dust; minimizing the extent of disturbed surface; during times of high wind, restricting earthwork activities; and limiting the use of, and speeds on, unimproved road surfaces.

37

9. Wetlands – The WIC would work with the State of Utah DWRi on a stream alteration permit. It will be determined what measures need to be taken to avoid any and all wetlands where able. If a wetland area is relatively unavoidable, there would be consultation with the appropriate agencies so as to minimize surface and immediate subsurface integrity. A USACE 404 permit would be obtained prior to the discharge of any dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands.

38

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Introduction

This chapter details consultation and coordination between Reclamation and other Federal, state, and local Government Agencies, Native American Tribes, and the public during the preparation of this EA. Compliance with NEPA, is a Federal responsibility that involves the participation of all of these entities in the planning process. The NEPA requires full disclosure about major actions taken by Federal agencies and accompanying alternatives, impacts, and potential mitigation of impacts.

5.2 Public Involvement

A public open house meeting to discuss the proposed project is scheduled to be held on Monday July 11, 2016, from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm at the Woodruff Town Hall located at 195 S. Main, Woodruff, Utah 84086. The draft EA will be provided to the public and government agencies for a 30-day comment period. All comments will be considered and addressed in the Final EA. Comments will be maintained in the Project administrative record and available for public review.

5.3 Native American Consultation

Reclamation conducted Native American consultation throughout the public involvement process. A consultation letter and copy of the Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report was sent to the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho, and the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation during the week of June 13, 2016. This consultation was conducted in compliance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2) on a government-to-government basis. Through this effort the tribe is given a reasonable opportunity to identify any concerns about historic properties; to advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance; to express their views on the effects of the Proposed Action on such properties; and to participate in the resolution of adverse effects.

39

5.4 Utah Geological Survey

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) was contacted on December 2, 2015. The assistant to the State Paleontologist reviewed the Project area and determined that the APE is not a paleontological sensitive area.

5.5 Utah State Historic Preservation Office

A copy of the Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report and a determination of historic properties affected for the Proposed Action was submitted to the SHPO during the week of June 13, 2016.

5.6 Bureau of Indian Affairs

Dr. Zachary Nelson conducted a review of the Current American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Areas (AIANNH) National Shapefile which indicated that no ITAs were located near the Project area.

5.7 US Fish and Wildlife Service

The USFWS was contacted on November 25, 2015, and an IPaC report was obtained for the APE.

5.8 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

The UDWR was contacted on November 30, 2015. A response letter was received on December 7, 2015, with information on the State’s Special Status Species.

5.9 US Army Corps of Engineers

The WIC is preparing stream alteration permits through the DWRi. As part of this process, USACE will be consulted. A wetland delineation will be submitted to the USACE to determine jurisdiction of the wetland area located within the pipeline alignment.

40

Chapter 6 Preparers The following is a list of preparers who participated in the development of the EA. They include environmental summary preparers, Reclamation team members, and Federal, State and WIC members.

Table 6-1 Environmental Summary Preparers

Name Title Company

Ms. Monique Robbins Senior Engineer, Project Manager, Writing, Editing

Franson Civil Engineers Inc.

Mr. Jon Baxter Archeologist Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC

Mr. Bryan Watt Wetland Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC

Table 6-2 Reclamation Team Members

Name Title Company

Ms. Linda Morrey Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Rick Baxter ESA Coordinator Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Scott Blake Recreation and Visual Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Peter Crookston NEPA Coordinator Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Jeff Hearty Economist Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Zachary Nelson Archaeologist Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Justin Record Water Rights Bureau of Reclamation Mr. David Snyder CWA Coordinator Bureau of Reclamation

Table 6-3 Federal, State or District Members

Name Title Company

Mr. Wes Tingey President Woodruff Irrigating Company

Ms. Sarah Lindsey Senior GIS Analysist Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Ms. Martha Hayden Assistant State Paleontologist

Utah Geological Survey

Ms. Jena Lewinsohn Terrestrial Botanist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

41

Chapter 7 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviations Meaning AIANNH American Indian/Alaska Native/Native

Hawaiian Areas APE Area of Potential Effect BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs Bighorn Bighorn Archaeological Consultants CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet Per Second CWA Clean Water Act DNR Utah Department of Natural Resources DWQ Utah Division of Water Quality DWRi Utah Division of Water Rights EA Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HDPE High Density Polyethylene IPaC Information for Planning and

Conservation ITA Indian Trust Assets NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M Operation and Maintenance Project Woodruff Pressurized Irrigation Project PSI pounds per square inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation SHPO Utah State Historic Preservation Office SOP Standard Operating Procedures SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan UAC Utah Administrative Code UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UGS Utah Geological Survey UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WIC Woodruff Irrigating Company

42

Chapter 8 References Bear River Watershed Information System. (2011). bearriverinfo.org Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC. (2015, January). Cultural Resources Survey. Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC. (2015, December). Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation for the Proposed Woodruff Irrigation Pipeline Project. Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2015, December). Custom Soil Resource Report for Rich County, Utah. Rich County, Rich Utah Resource Assessment (2011, April). http://www.uacd.org/pdfs/RA/14%20Rich%20County%202011%20resource%20assessment.pdf. Romin, L. A., and J. A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection from human and land use disturbances. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Ecological Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2015, November 25). IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/DTTEY-LM42B-BC3NG-G36RF-M3DLRM. Utah Department of Environmental Quality. (2006, August 8). Lake Reports. Birch Creek Reservoir #2. http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/watersheds/docs/2006/08Aug/BIRCHCR2.pdf Utah Department of Environmental Quality. (2006, August 8). Lake Reports. Woodruff Creek Reservoir. http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/watersheds/docs/2006/08Aug/WOODRUFF.pdf Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2015, December 7). Species of Concern Near the Woodruff Irrigation Pipeline Project, Woodruff, Utah. Letter obtained on December 7, 2015.

43

Chapter 9 Appendices

9.1 Appendix A – Meeting Minutes

44

45

46

47

48

49